Anyone else planning on retiring early due to the availability of health insurance

[kelly1mm]

at 133% of the poverty level with no asset limits? I am. I am 41 and wife 43. No kids, paid for house/farm, non-tax deferred investments will generate about 17K per year so just make the 133% of poverty line limit for medicaid insurance. Since we grow most of our own food , heat with wood, have solar panels/well, and no debt, our living expenses are less than 12k per year now. We have been thinking of retiring early but health care for the next 20+ years was the big stumbling block.

I think you will see LOTS of people like my wife and I leaving the ranks of the corporate world as there are many that are working now just for the health benefits.

Is anyone else planning to retire early in 2014? Do you think this will be a trend? Will it be a good thing or a bad thing? Should open some spots for the younger generation in the workplace but lose alot of tax revenue from older workers.

[msongs]

1. not sure u should bet your retirement on the whims of politicians if your situation is marginal nt

[kelly1mm]

6. But for health insurance (if we had to pay for it out of pocket) our investments cover 140% of our

expenses just in interest/dividends. When we turn 59.5 we have another $400k we can tap. At 62 we have small pensions coming on board (about $2700 per month total) and the medicare at 65 and SS at 67. It is the time between 2014 till when we turn 59.5 (2028) that is at all problematic. If health care is covered then we should be fine.

[truedelphi]

95. Even if you think you can aafford to retire at 59.5 years of age, think

About it CAREFULLY. I know the health insurance situation, even when using what is now the Calif exchange, means we would spend $ 1,060 bucks a month on our health insurance ((for the both of us.)

Then there is an automatic deductible of $ 2,500 per person before the insurers pay anything. And then there are co-pays. So if we could afford it, this totals up to over 17 thousand a year for our health insurance.

Now I know the meme out there is that you will be able to have subsidies for your insurance, but what I don't know about is whether assets will mean you can't have subsidies until your assets are gone.

Is a person's home considered an asset? Is a new car? How about retirement monies? So if you retire at 59.5 and your 400K of retirement (which is not that much given the fact that women are living to be in their mid nineties these days) is held against you and must be depleted in full before you can have subsidies, then you really need to think about that number - $ 17,000 plus for a mere 12 months of health insurance.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. I got retired early in 2008....

fortunately with enough time put in to get health coverage from the company (we pay 350/mo, which covers medical and dental for my wife and I - very lucky to have it) - it is my two girls who will benefit from the ACA the most from our family. I still dabble with a bit of consulting now and then when the opportunity arises (which isn't often these days). Mostly, I am happy for those in the US for whom the ACA will finally give some relief to.

[kelly1mm]

20. If your income is under 133% of the federal poverty line you would be able to switch

to medicaid if you wanted and save that $350 per month. They will not be looking at assets anymore as of 2014.

[truedelphi]

96. Are you sure about the assets statement that you are making?

That is wonderful news if it is true.

[Puzzledtraveller]

3. I can retire from state employment in 2033, I'll be 60.

[Rabid_Rabbit]

4. Where would you get health insurance

before 65? Would you be able to get it from the big insurance companies? I am a little confused because I thought health insurance in America had to be bought through the employer.
Thanks

[kelly1mm]

8. Part of ACA was that medicaid eligibility was expanded to 133% of the poverty line.

That would be about $17,500 in today's dollars for 2 people. Medicaid is government insurance for the poor. Until the ACA, there was a income cap and asset cap. The asset cap has been lifted and the income cap is now 133% of the poverty level. For those like my wife and I with no debt and paid for housing, 17K per year is more than enough to have a good standard of living.

[dogman]

5. Check your state's Medicaid plan first.

Also factor in the future politics that will affect your state's program. I had to retire at 62 to save my health care. The ACA would have made my choice different after 2014. I could have continued to work till 66 if I desired.

[kelly1mm]

10. Definitely! I am in Maryland so our Governor is on board with the Medicaid expansion.

The final decision will be based on what exactly the new rules are. It is my understanding that there are no asset limitations anymore per the ACA. IF (BIG IF) that turns out to be the case in 2014, then we should be OK.

I guess I am just getting a bit excited in seeing the light at the end of the working grind tunnel!

[Honeycombe8]

37. Medicaid isn't that good. And not that many drs. will see Medicaid patients. As long as you're okay

As long as you're okay with that.

But no, I exceed teh minimum income limits, so I can't. But I'm in my late 50's, so all I need to do is hang on.

[kelly1mm]

39. I am in rural maryland and all my current doctors take medicaid. Not much choice in the poorer

areas/Appalachia

[Honeycombe8]

40. You are lucky. I wish you further luck. (wish I lived in Maryland, except it snows a lot there!). nt

[FarCenter]

7. Be careful of inflation

The most probable way for the politicians to get out of the debt mess is through inflation.

Some late '70s level inflation at over 10% per annum will allow the government to pay back debt with a much shrunken dollar.

But it will be hell on retirees.

[kelly1mm]

21. That is my NUMBER ONE concern now (health insurance was number one). I have tried to have a mix of

investments (all tax deferred accounts are in the stock market, all non tax deferred are fixed income/dividends + a bit of precious metals and our land) to help if inflation takes off.

[zipplewrath]

9. Doesn't pay for everything

You might want to check out what is covered. And what you'll be paying out of pocket. Being sick can still be quite expensive. You might be able to find some sort of supplemental plan to cover what isn't.

[kelly1mm]

11. Thanks for the tip - I will have to look into that. I guess I am just getting a little excited

about the posibility of retiring (maybe) in 18 months instead of 18 years!

[Ghost of Huey Long]

12. Congrats! Hey, folks we have a real job creation program here!

Seriously, I am really happy for you! That is awesome. Why should we all slave away just to give half of our income to insurance companies?


Think of all the people free to retire, free to enjoy their lives without fear of getting sick and losing everything they have.

They are leaving job openings for the new generation, and this plan is no doubt creating all kinds of health care jobs. Jobs by Americans, for Americans.

And how many people stay in shitty jobs just for the health care?

I feel a new sense of freedom brewing, a great healthy awakening....freedom from stress about health care will naturally, spontaneously make us all healthier as stress is the number one cause of illness.

[kelly1mm]

13. That is what I think as well! I know TONS of people at my job site alone who

work for insurance only. I would say a majority of those past 55 would be in that category (about 30 people total) at least at my job. I did not even let myself think about early retirement as I like many people did not expect it to be upheld.

My only fear is that once people realize the asset limitations to medicaid will not be in place after 2014, too many people will apply and lead to changes.

Anyway, I will be HAPPY to give my job to someone just out of school!

[stuckinodi]

14.

[kelly1mm]

16. Wrong. See new eligibility requirements under ACA. No asset limits after 2014.

Here is an excerpt from the federal register:

No Resource Test or Income Disregards (Sec. 435.603(g))
Comment: Many commenters supported the proposal to prohibit
consideration of assets in determining financial eligibility for
Medicaid and CHIP. A few commenters recommended retaining the asset
test because eliminating the test entirely could incentivize people
with significant assets to stop working and could result in others with
significant assets, but minimal income, being enrolled in Medicaid at
the taxpayer's expense.
Response: Section 1902(e)(14)(C) of the Act, as added by section
2002 of the Affordable Care Act, expressly prohibits consideration of
assets in determining eligibility for individuals whose financial
eligibility is based on MAGI methods. We do not have the flexibility to
issue regulations to the contrary and are finalizing the regulation at
Sec. 435.603(g) as proposed. We note that currently almost all States
do not consider assets when determining children's eligibility for
Medicaid and nearly half of all States have also dropped the asset test
for parents.




Here is a link:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-23/html/2012-6560.htm

[RebelOne]

15. I would not retire if I were you.

I was forced into retirement when I was laid off my job in 2010. I was already collecting social security and decided to retire at that time because I was already 71 and knew there was no way any one would hire me at my age. My total social security income is $16,800 a year and it is barely enough. I live in a mobile home with very low lot rent. My car is paid even though it is getting old, but I don't have to drive it back and forth to work, so I am saving on gas. My only other expenses are utilities, cable, phone and Internet, plus home and car insurance and I am not having an easy time covering all those expenses.

So if you and your wife have secure jobs, I would advise that you both keep them as long as possible and sock away as much money as you can.

[kelly1mm]

17. We have lots of assets (paid for house, 400k+ in 401k, 300k in non-tax deferred accounts,

raise our own food and have over 2.5 kwh of solar panels, no other debt) along with pensions that kick in at 62 if we retire now) our current living expenses are less than 12k per year and the interest on investments is just over 17k per year.

I just don't want to work at my day job any more. Lots of things to do around the homestead instead!

[shcrane71]

18. That sounds like paradise!

Good Luck!

[kelly1mm]

19. That is what we think too! Took a lot of work and sacrifice to get to this point but

once we found out we could not have kids we kind of plowed into our jobs with the goal of retiring early and enjoying our years together. Part of retiring early without millions was to have as low of overhead as possible, hence the paid for homestead, wood stove for heat/cooking, solar panels, etc. That and not being materialistic have served us well.

[shcrane71]

22. Are you completely off the grid? I've often dreamt of that doing that.

No kids here either, but we do like to travel.

[kelly1mm]

23. We are grid tied with a battery backup. During the summer, we generate all our

electricity + some that we "sell" to the power company. In the winter we use some energy from the grid. We could go totally off the grid if necessary by cutting back on some of the energy hogs. In 2011 our net bill for the year for electricity was $322.95. That is for the year, not monthly.

[forthemiddle]

49. Medicaid is for the needy.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but Medicaid is for the needy, not people who just don't feel like working anymore.

In most States it is one of, if the the biggest financial strain, so States are already looking for legal ways to make cuts to the program. What you are literally thinking of doing is stealing from the program that a child, disabled, or truly down of there luck individual could be using.

I hope I don't get to flamed for these comments (I am pretty new to this forum), but people like you are the ones that give the term "Welfare Queen" credence.

[suffragette]

50. Welfare Queen is a right wing Reagan term

and shows the type of thinking that keeps us from moving forward on the more meaningful reform of single payer or Medicare for all, which is the direction we need to pursue.

I'm curious, you say you're new, but your profile shows your join date as 2001. Is that an error?

[forthemiddle]

53. That is why I put "Welfare Queen" in quotes.

I must have signed up in 2001, but I honestly don't recall it.
When Wisconsin Recalls were going on, I tried to sign up because I live in the State, and I was reading everything I could about it, and decided to comment. When I tried to sign up, it said that I already had an account, so they emailed me the info and I went from there.
I am not sure if it was me, or my husband that originally signed up, or why but that is the story.

My main problem is that I hardly ever comment on forums. I am not a "me too" poster, and I do not always express myself very well via writing. I find so many other people say exactly what I wanted to say, but say it so much better that I leave it to them. So although I may be saying "me too" when someone writes something, I don't write it in the forum. Hence my # count will always be EXTREMELY low, and people will always question my true leanings.

In this case I honestly think that until this Country gets a single payer system that someone using benefits that could be going to someone more needy is not a good thing. States are going bankrupt (or at least they are saying they are), and Medicaid is one of their largest expenses, so that WILL be the first thing cut.

[Gormy Cuss]

54. Yes, currently Medicaid is for the needy

and states are only obligated to cover those who meet Federal eligibility guidelines. I'm no expert on eligibility but I think that the OP's assets would disqualify them for Medicaid under current rules. I don't know how ACA would handle it but asset testing could become an issue down the road.

[forthemiddle]

56. And that was the point I was trying to make (badly)

According to the OP the new guidelines will not take assets into account. He owns his own home, and has I believe over 1/2 a million $$$ in 401K, retirement, and savings, etc. He also will have access to a pension in 20 years. So he is admitting he is not "needy" but without the asset guideline, he can get free healthcare, that in my opinion would be better spent on truly "needy" people.

I wish we had single payer, or even better co ops so the OP could buy into cheap health insurance, and not have to keep a job just for the insurance, but as of today, we don't have that, and States are going broke, so I just don't feel good about him getting free insurance, because he can, yet having 1/2 a million dollars in assets (although admittedly assets he can't use right now - 401K, pension, etc).

[Gormy Cuss]

57. Medicaid claw-back provisions were instituted because of people gaming the system

and I would bet that should it become necessary or politically expedient a similar modification to eligibility would be instituted to send a clear message that those who are wealthy in assets but not showing much as income that they need to buy insurance rather than depend on Medicaid.

[kelly1mm]

65. Think of it as a jobs stimulus program if it makes you feel better. My job can go

to someone else who right now can't find a job. The only reason I work off the homestead is for health insurance benefits. How many others do you think are in the same position? If I have to pay for health insurance on my own then I will not retire. I don't need my wages (I can retire now if not for health insurance) to pay my non-health insurance related living expenses.

The assets we have listed above are total, wife and I together, so I am not super well off. I know I have been LUCKY in life to get to where I am. I would like someone else to get a chance now. I have been working since I was 14 so basically 30 years by 2014. I think that is enough.

[kelly1mm]

63. ACA specifically states there will be no asset testing. It takes away the current

asset tests. See post 16 for a link and the applicable section of the law.

[Gormy Cuss]

69. No asset testing at the moment.

I'm speculating on future change if too many people are gaming the system by being asset-rich but not showing much in the way of income.

Since the nursing home gambit is well known I'd be surprised if there isn't language in ACA somewhere that allows for possibility of asset testing in certain circumstances.

[kelly1mm]

73. I linked to the federal register for the no asset limit rule in post 16 if you are interested.

Of course an asset limit could be instituted but would require a change to the law itself (it is not a regulation, it is in the ACA law). In that same vein, the entire law could be repealed. I don't think any part of the law will be revisited any time soon.

[Gormy Cuss]

83. The Social Security Act was substantially revised only four years after it became law.

That's just one example off the top of my head of a broad, sweeping new law like ACA being revisited not long after enactment.

[kelly1mm]

61. Not any more (or at least in 2014). The ACA removes the limit on assets.

Post #16 has a link to the applicable section. It is only based on income now. Theoretically, if Bill Gates could structure his assets to have income at 133% of the poverty level, he would qualify.

[Marrah_G]

70. Your assets would disqualify you for medicaid.

Medicaid is for the poor.... you are not poor. As a single working woman trying to put two kids through college on two part time jobs, I find your post really annoying. I have no assets, no savings, no retirement and I just lost my Commonwealth care ( Massachusetts) That I buy into because my youngest graduated from HS and now I "make too much".

You want to retire at age 40, keep your extensive assets AND get medicaid?

Seriously, WTF?

[kelly1mm]

75. Not any more. Medicaid used to be for the poor (income and assets) Under ACA, the asset limit

is abolished. I posted a link to the law/federal register in post 16 if you are interested.

I have worked for 30 years since I was 14 years old. We (wife and I) have worked HARD for the past 20 and I admit I have been LUCKY to have a few good breaks and been able to get to where I am today.

Why should I work if I don't have too? I am opening a slot for the next generation that needs to build up their assets/or simply pay for life's expenses. Right now I am working just for health insurance. A lot of my peers are as well. I would hope that if some of us who don't need the wages retire, the unemployment rate goes down.

My 'extensive' assets are both mine and my wife's so less than 500k (total) each and we have never made over 100k per year. Not exactly 1% territory.

[Marrah_G]

77. "Why should I work if I don't have too?"

All I can say is that if a person can have half a million and qualify for free insurance, while the working poor make "too much" to qualify for it, yet have no assets then something is seriously out of whack.

This is why we need single payer healthcare.

[kelly1mm]

81. I hope that those who may leave the workforce allow for more opportunities for you

and your family in the future.

[Hippo_Tron]

89. At 9% unemployment, it's a good thing if people are able to leave the workforce

And given the OP's situation, it's not as though they're really a drain on the system. They can support themselves in every way, other than health care, which under the current system can be far too expensive for a lot of people who are otherwise doing just fine.

We do indeed need single payer, precisely for this reason.

[bvar22]

24. Have you ever used Medicaid,

...or do you know anyone on Medicaid?

It is definitely a 3rd Class system,
and you should check for providers in your area.

[kelly1mm]

25. I live in rural Maryland. All my current health care providers take medicaid. nt

[kelly1mm]

74. Not under the ACA in 2014. The law specifically takes away the asset limitations for qualifying

medicaid and looks solely at income (and citizenship/residency) for the 133% of poverty line expansion (the states don't HAVE to do this, mine, MD, already said it will). I linked to the law/federal register in post 16 if you are interested.

[eridani]

26. I guess you weren't paying attention to the part of the SOTUS decision that said

--states could not be required to increase Medicaid funding. With the anticipated slashing of reimbursment rates due to deficit hysteria, lots of luck finding a doctor who will agree to treat you.

[kelly1mm]

28. Nope, I read the opinion and know that that part of the decision. MD is going ahead with

the 133% plan per Gov. O'Malley so I should be OK. I live in rural MD and all my health care providers take medicare (I already checked).

[eridani]

98. So fuck the people in other states who will not be able to get on Medicaid, right? n/t

[truedelphi]

97. I find your concerns to be genuine

California has been very liberal in terms of bringing people aboard with county health insurance and what not. But now we are in trouble with our state deficit.

And this means state funding to clinics will be negligible. So even though "technically" people will have health insurance, once the clinics start closing, good luck with finding a doctor if you are on Medicaid.

[LiberalFighter]

27. I doubt there would be that many that would retire early because they want to.

Maybe I am wrong. I think you have unusual circumstances that allow you to take the option.

[kelly1mm]

31. I disagree. I believe a good number of 50+ year olds are only working for health care benefits

and can retire now on their assets but for heath insurance costs. About 1/2 of the 50+ employees at my job site have stated as such.

I think this will open a bunch of positions for those coming out of college or that are currently unemployed.

[pnwmom]

29. I think this could also encourage more people to become self-employed or to join start-ups.

One of my relatives was offered a good position at a very promising start-up, but the health insurance only covered 50% of hospitalization and his wife had a precondition. If he'd been able to buy insurance through an exchange, he wouldn't have had to go work for a large company instead.

[eridani]

32. I sure wouldn't. Single payer would bmake it worth the risk

Not the overpriced underinsurance available on the exchanges.

[pnwmom]

41. How do you know that about the insurance on the exchanges, since they haven't been set up yet?

And any state could decide to add a public option, too. That's where the efforts should go now.

[eridani]

42. I already know that the Bronze option (if I could even afford that with age rating)

--pays only 60% of costs AFTER deductibles. There is no amount of lipstick that any state could put on that pig to make it acceptable. We are over the Medicaid income limits

[pnwmom]

44. You're right -- that's not enough, especially if you're talking about hospitalization costs.

I've never heard about the "Bronze" option. Do you have a link about this?

[eridani]

45. Pardon me for dropping my jaw, but ACA has been so heavily

--dissected here for two years, and you have a pretty high post count. But, come to think of it, the nasty class-tiering of ACA is not something that supporters of the act feel comfortable talking about and defending. Here is one link

http://www.upmchealthplan.com/about/exchanges.html

And another
http://pnhp.org/blog/2012/04/27/quantitative-assessment-of-aca-underinsurance/

One of the major flaws of the Affordable Care Act is that underinsurance will become the new standard for health insurance in the United States. This new analysis demonstrates how the most common plans that will be purchased in the state insurance exchanges will fall well below the coverage that most people have today.

The cheapest plans in the exchanges – bronze plans with an actuarial value of 60% (patient pays an average of 40% of covered costs) – will have deductibles of $4,375 for an individual ($8,750 for families) with coinsurance of 20% (the patient pays 20% of the amount over the deductible). The deductible can be reduced to $3,475 for an individual but then the patient faces a staggering coinsurance of 40%.

Because of the availability of income-indexed subsidies, it is likely that silver plans with an actuarial value of 70% will be the most commonly selected plans. These are still well below the typical employer-sponsored plans which have an average actuarial value of 82%. The deductible for the silver plans would be $2,050 for an individual with a 20% coinsurance rate. The deductible could be reduced to $650 but, again, the coinsurance rate would increase to 40%.

[suffragette]

52. Looks like that translates to people purchasing insurance but not being able to use it due to cost

for actual treatment, especially since the people purchasing the lower level plans are likely to be doing so because of lower budget in the first place.

Thanks for providing the actual numbers for usage eridani.

[eridani]

87. Bingo. That's why medical bankruptcies are STILL 50% of all bankruptcies in MA

The political difficulty here is that the healthy majority (the 85% who account for only 15% of health care costs) don't know or care about this. They can afford, for the time being, the delusion that they have actually bought protection from the astronomical costs that the 15% accounting for 85% of expenses incur.

[girl gone mad]

88. It's been a bit disconcerting to me..

how many people here have almost no idea what is in the bill.

You are right about MA. Bankruptcies increased after Romneycare was enacted. Many were moved onto insurance rolls, but were then only able to acquire skimpy, defective policies that are little better than no insurance (and quite possibly worse).

[suffragette]

91. Seems like the myth of moral hazard will still apply

as strongly as ever, only with under-insured vs well-insured instead of uninsured vs insured.
See http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact?currentPage=all for a great article on that.

And the point about medical bankruptcies is an important one. Here's just one link on that:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21396505

[eridani]

93. Good artticles. Thanks. n/t

[pnwmom]

60. Thank you for the links. You are right, 60% is not enough, and that is one of the changes

we should be lobbying for, now that the law has been passed and the principal has at long last been established that all Americans are entitled to health care.

There is one point in the first link that you might have missed, however. The plan does assist people with incomes up to 400% of Federal poverty level to purchase insurance at the Silver level (70%), rather than the Bronze level.

"The Exchange will provide two types of financial assistance for consumers whose household income is more than 100 percent but less than 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for their family size. The FPL is updated annually and published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 2011, the FPL for an individual and a family of four was $10,890 and $22,350, respectively.

"Premium Assistance Credits are refundable tax credits that can be claimed at the time an individual purchases a QHP. Individuals with lower income will receive more generous credits to help them purchase coverage.
Cost-Sharing Subsidies are federal payments that reduce the out-of-pocket spending limits in an individual's "Silver" health plan by up to two-thirds. Individuals with lower income will receive more generous subsidies to help them afford the cost-sharing for covered benefits under their plan."

[eridani]

86. I really don't see why there couldn't have been just a single plan, with an actuarial

--value at least (and preferably slightly above) the average value of employer provided insurance. That would be a floor, not a ceiling--anyone who wanted more could pay for it on their own dime. That's what the wealthy in civilized countries do.

[pnwmom]

90. I don't know why either. Sounds like a good amendment to me. nt

[Autumn]

64. Thank you for this link

I have seen reference to this but that addresses the concerns I have.

[NNN0LHI]

30. Do you have any extra money budgeted in for unexpected costs?

Like maybe a well going dry and needing to have a new one drilled? Or your property taxes increasing a lot? Or needing some major remodeling done in a few years? Or finding out you need to hire a contractor for an expensive plumbing/electrical job? Have you priced a new furnace recently?

I guess my point is you need to think long term because things can go wrong real fast.

Don

[kelly1mm]

33. We have a $5k cushion in current yearly interest/dividend income v expenses. Property tax is

capped in MD based on income. With 17k in income our taxes would max out at $510 v. the current $3,100. We have over 300K in non tax deferred accounts and another 400k in 401k's if there are problems/house repairs needed. Don't have a furnace as we heat with wood. Have pensions coming in when we turn 62 for extra income if needed 20 years down the road.

[NNN0LHI]

35. Well, congratulations that is a pretty darn good cushion

Since you are both fairly young and healthy if I were you I would go for the dream.

I retired young(48) myself and have never regretted it.

Best of luck to you and your wife. Keep us informed how things are going for you over the years.



Don

[kelly1mm]

38. I am really hoping everything works out! I didn't let my wife know about the lifting

of the asset limitation till this morning as I was not sure if the ACA would be upheld and she has not followed it that closely. Now we can make some last minute plans and start our 18 month countdown! I am stoked!

[NNN0LHI]

48. Thank you for the good wishes and one last little piece of advice

I would not tell any acquaintances or family ... especially family, how much you have saved up.

Lot of leeches out there.

Again good luck for you and your wife.

Don

[On the Road]

85. Let's Say You Did Need to Dip into Long-Term Savings for an Emergency

It is worth investigating whether the disbursement from your retirement savings would count as income. That might disqualify you for insurance in future years. Just a thought.

[Courtesy Flush]

34. Wait! You say Obamacare will make you MORE free?

That's crazy. It steals our freedoms!

[kelly1mm]

36. absolutely more free to pursue other , non-paying interests. I think a good many will do as I am

planning and open some slots for those just now entering the workforce.

[MrMickeysMom]

43. I won't plan on it, but agree

[Digit]

46. I am considering going out on ss disability

Several doctors have suggested I do this and I wanted to work, but it is difficult.

None of the jobs I qualify for offer health insurance or the pay is so low to not be able to afford it what they offer in hb.

I held out for as long as I could as I didn't want to give up.

I think it is time to throw in the towel.

It sucks.

[rucky]

47. Go for it!

Glad to see people having new options opening up

[slackmaster]

51. Your plan sounds very risky to me. You have a lot of years left.

You are still very young and have a lot of potential to do meaningful work.

An old friend of mine added a twist to a popular proverb. He said:

"Money can't buy you happiness, but poverty can't buy you anything."

[hunter]

62. 90% of jobs are meaningless crap, not "meaningful work."

A good number of those meaningless jobs corrode the human spirit and destroy our earth's natural environment.

If someone finds a way to support themselves body-and-soul while minimizing their interactions with the existing economic system they are better off than most of us.

Our current gauges of economic productivity were installed by the devil.

[Zorra]

55. Duh! Go for it!!! Life is short. Have fun! Why wait until

you are old and possibly unhealthy to (maybe) have free time to explore life? My advice is take it, and run with it, while you are still young and healthy.

You could die, or get really sick, tomorrow.

Seriously, take the money and run.

I had several free years after college before I had children to do my own thing, and have been doing my own thing pretty much since they left home. When I was young, I was full of energy for adventure, and too clueless to be afraid of much. I don't regret any of it one bit, and if I die tomorrow...well, it's been a most awesome, excellent ride. I'm enjoying the things that I do now, so don't plan to retire yet, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?

Enjoy the day. It's all we have.

I'm so very happy for you and your wife, Kelly 1mm!

[cpamomfromtexas]

58. Sounds like you could make this a business

Put up a website, tell about how you're doing it, explain it to the masses that they can too.

[kelly1mm]

66. I want to stop working, not run some other business. We don't need the

income anyway. We just want to enjoy the farm and each other's company. If you want to start a website about it go right ahead.

[B Calm]

59. I'll be 62 next April. I was

planning on retiring when medicare kicked in, but now I'm seriously considering going out at 62. I'm so sick of this ball and chain attached to my ankle and would like to enjoy what few years I have left. After all they do call it our golden years. There is something fundamental wrong with this country seeing people working so late in life.

[kelly1mm]

67. That is what I have heard by talking with a lot of my workmates. They want to retire

but can't due to health insurance. If that was paid for then I think a good portion (maybe 10%????) of those over 60 would retire now. Think of it as a stimulus plan.

[RebelOne]

68. Hang in there until you are 65 because you will not be eligible for Medicare until then.

I worked until I was 70, and then I was laid off. I kept working because of my health insurance, which was exceptional. I was already collecting social security, but did not have Medicare because my employer's insurance was so good. I had life insurance, medical, dental and eye coverage, but I lost all that and had to go to Medicare that is $110 a month and only includes medical and that is it. There is the Advantage plan that has dental and eye care, but I cannot afford it on my meager social security.

[B Calm]

84. I work in a very dangerous occupation

and that's not including the stress. I want out now!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. The ACA allows insurance companies to charge people over 50 higher premiums

That's one of my gripes, being over 50. At present, I have a high-deductible plan that is strictly asset protection and doesn't cover anything. I can't afford any insurance that actually covers anything non-catastrophic.

[kelly1mm]

72. Medicaid at under 133% of the poverty line has no/very small copays and that is what

I will be qualifying for in 2014. If you are not eligible for medicaid then you will still have premiums that will be higher if over 50. Since I wont have to worry about that from age 43-62 when the pensions kick in (and thus will be over the 133% cutoff) I should be OK.

I hope that the exchanges are affordable for all once they get finalized.

[femmocrat]

76. I have been postponing retirement because of health care...

but now I am seriously considering going after the next school year.

I have been waiting for this for a long time!

[kelly1mm]

78. Do you think this will be a trend? I think about 10% of the people 50+ may be able to retire now

and qualify for free/dirt cheap health insurance. I think this is a good thing as there have been MULTIPLE threads about how hard it is for those over 50 to get a job and MULTIPLE threads about how there are no openings for jobs for the younger generation. All in all, a good situation for everyone!

[femmocrat]

79. I sure hope so!

If it is true, it will free up a lot of opportunities for younger workers to get on with their lives. We baby boomers have been like a hug clog in the system and this could give us the push we need!

I predict a housing boom in retirement communities! LOL

[southernyankeebelle]

80. I don't know how early you are talking about but I retired at 62. I tried to get disability but

they wouldn't give it to me. So when I got 62 they couldn't tell me no. I have health issues. I don't know how people who are most likely worse off than me.

[kelly1mm]

82. I will be 43 and wife will be 45. We don't need disability, just medicaid. The ACA allows

for medicaid for those at 133% of the poverty line (about 17,000 per couple) starting in 2014 with no asset or age limit. We have enough income to cover our living expenses if health insurance was taken care of.

[southernyankeebelle]

94. Good for you.

[joshcryer]

92. I plan to do that, but not because of ACA! Great minds. :)